Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1976–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Yadori Marie F.green2 sentences2019Matter of Yadori Marie F. [Osvaldo F.] , 111 AD3d 418 , 419 [1st Dept 2013]). 2014Matter of Yadori, 111 AD3d at 419). | 1 | 2 |
In re Martha P.green1 sentence2010Accordingly, the Family Court correctly concluded that the mother “willfully refused to appear at the hearing” (Family Ct Act § 1042; see Matter of Nicholas S., 46 AD3d 830, 831 [2007]; Matter of W. | 1 | 1 |
City of New York v. West Winds Convertibles International, Inc.green2 sentences2007(See City of New York v West Winds Convertibles Intl., Inc., 16 Misc 3d 646, 650-651 [Sup Ct, Kings County 2007].) The court’s determination that the City is not entitled to a temporary closing order or temporary restraining order would not necessarily preclude the issuance of the proposed order to show cause, limited to the scheduling for hearing the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction. 2007Generally, “[t]he party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor.” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]; see also Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 , 750 [1988] [“a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits”]; Ingenuit, Ltd. v Harriff, 33 AD3d 589, 589 [2d Dept 2006].) The movant has the burden of showing a “clear” and “undisputed” right to preliminary relief “upon the moving papers.” (See Ishaq v Batra, 170 AD2d 436, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Kallins v. Kallinsgreen1 sentence2007Generally, “[t]he party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor.” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]; see also Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 , 750 [1988] [“a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits”]; Ingenuit, Ltd. v Harriff, 33 AD3d 589, 589 [2d Dept 2006].) The movant has the burden of showing a “clear” and “undisputed” right to preliminary relief “upon the moving papers.” (See Ishaq v Batra, 170 AD2d 436, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Nobu Next Door, LLC v. Fine Arts Housing, Inc.green1 sentence2007Generally, “[t]he party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor.” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]; see also Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 , 750 [1988] [“a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits”]; Ingenuit, Ltd. v Harriff, 33 AD3d 589, 589 [2d Dept 2006].) The movant has the burden of showing a “clear” and “undisputed” right to preliminary relief “upon the moving papers.” (See Ishaq v Batra, 170 AD2d 436, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Ingenuit, Ltd. v. Harriffgreen1 sentence2007Generally, “[t]he party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor.” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]; see also Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 , 750 [1988] [“a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits”]; Ingenuit, Ltd. v Harriff, 33 AD3d 589, 589 [2d Dept 2006].) The movant has the burden of showing a “clear” and “undisputed” right to preliminary relief “upon the moving papers.” (See Ishaq v Batra, 170 AD2d 436, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Axelrodgreen1 sentence2007Generally, “[t]he party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a probability of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury in the absence of an injunction and a balance of equities in its favor.” (Nobu Next Door, LLC v Fine Arts Hous., Inc., 4 NY3d 839, 840 [2005]; see also Doe v Axelrod, 73 NY2d 748 , 750 [1988] [“a likelihood of ultimate success on the merits”]; Ingenuit, Ltd. v Harriff, 33 AD3d 589, 589 [2d Dept 2006].) The movant has the burden of showing a “clear” and “undisputed” right to preliminary relief “upon the moving papers.” (See Ishaq v Batra, 170 AD2d 436, 4 | 1 | 1 |
Tricarico v. Cerasuologreen1 sentence1994In any event, even if New York County were a proper venue, a change to Suffolk County, where the cause of action arose, the witnesses and defendants all reside and work, and plaintiffs maintain a second residence, would be justified in furtherance of the ends of justice (CPLR 510 [3]; see, Tricarico v Cerasuolo, 199 AD2d 142 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maniscalco v. Mount Sinai Medical Center
green
2 sentences2023Ctr. , 128 AD3d 1029, 1030 ). 2020Ctr. , 128 AD3d 1029 , SS Constantine & Helen's Romanian Orthodox Church of America v Z. | 2 | 2020–2023 |
Young Su Hwangbo v. Nastro
green
2 sentences2023Under the circumstances of this case, including that the scheduling error by counsel for the plaintiff was brief, isolated, and unintentional, with no evidence of wilful neglect ( see id. at 789; Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 153 AD3d 963, 965 ), and considering the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits ( see Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 153 AD3d at 965 ; Brinson v Pod , 129 AD3d 1005, 1009 ), the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the March 2019 order ( see Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 2023Under the circumstances of this case, including that the scheduling error by counsel for the plaintiff was brief, isolated, and unintentional, with no evidence of wilful neglect ( see id. at 789; Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 153 AD3d 963, 965 ), and considering the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits ( see Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 153 AD3d at 965 ; Brinson v Pod , 129 AD3d 1005, 1009 ), the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the March 2019 order ( see Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Brinson v. Pod
green
1 sentence2023Under the circumstances of this case, including that the scheduling error by counsel for the plaintiff was brief, isolated, and unintentional, with no evidence of wilful neglect ( see id. at 789; Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 153 AD3d 963, 965 ), and considering the strong public policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits ( see Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , 153 AD3d at 965 ; Brinson v Pod , 129 AD3d 1005, 1009 ), the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to vacate the March 2019 order ( see Young Su Hwangbo v Nastro , | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Frumoff v. Wing
green
1 sentence2003The motion court properly dismissed the article 78 proceeding on the ground that the scheduling of a hearing rendered the demand therefor academic, and that the other relief sought could not be granted until petitioner first exhausted his administrative remedies (see Matter of Tellier v New York City Police Dept., 267 AD2d 9 ; Matter of Frumoff v Wing, 239 AD2d 216, 217 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Tellier v. New York City Police Department
green
1 sentence2003The motion court properly dismissed the article 78 proceeding on the ground that the scheduling of a hearing rendered the demand therefor academic, and that the other relief sought could not be granted until petitioner first exhausted his administrative remedies (see Matter of Tellier v New York City Police Dept., 267 AD2d 9 ; Matter of Frumoff v Wing, 239 AD2d 216, 217 ). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Corning Glass Works v. Ovsanik
green
1 sentence1997Nevertheless, the time limits set forth in Executive Law § 297 have been held to be directory rather than mandatory (Corning Glass Works v Ovsanik, 84 NY2d 619, 623-624 ) and respondent’s violation of them, even by so extraordinary a period of time, does not deprive it of jurisdiction (see, Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Glasz v. Glasz
green
1 sentence1997In any event, were we to review the issue, we would find that petitioners were not prejudiced as the court’s scheduling of the hearing was the result of their own initial insistence on an immediate hearing date (see, Glasz v Glasz, 173 AD2d 937 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Coulter v. Barber
green
1 sentence1997Concerning the merits, the record supports Family Court’s finding that respondents’ decision not to let petitioners see the child was based on legitimate concerns for the welfare of the child (see, Matter of Coulter v Barber, 214 AD2d 195 ; Matter of Luma v Kawalchuk, 240 AD2d 896 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Luma v. Kawalchuk
green
1 sentence1997Concerning the merits, the record supports Family Court’s finding that respondents’ decision not to let petitioners see the child was based on legitimate concerns for the welfare of the child (see, Matter of Coulter v Barber, 214 AD2d 195 ; Matter of Luma v Kawalchuk, 240 AD2d 896 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Tessy Plastics Corp. v. State Division of Human Rights
green
1 sentence1997Nevertheless, the time limits set forth in Executive Law § 297 have been held to be directory rather than mandatory (Corning Glass Works v Ovsanik, 84 NY2d 619, 623-624 ) and respondent’s violation of them, even by so extraordinary a period of time, does not deprive it of jurisdiction (see, Tessy Plastics Corp. v State Div. of Human Rights, 47 NY2d 789 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In re Elliott
green
1 sentence1990(Matter of Jackson, 149 AD2d 10 ; Matter of Brill, 131 AD2d 3 ; Matter of Elliott, 118 AD2d 293 .) In light of respondent’s failure to cooperate thus far and the likelihood that he has absconded with over $11,000 in escrow funds, the scheduling of a hearing would be futile. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In re Brill
green
1 sentence1990(Matter of Jackson, 149 AD2d 10 ; Matter of Brill, 131 AD2d 3 ; Matter of Elliott, 118 AD2d 293 .) In light of respondent’s failure to cooperate thus far and the likelihood that he has absconded with over $11,000 in escrow funds, the scheduling of a hearing would be futile. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In re Jackson
green
1 sentence1990(Matter of Jackson, 149 AD2d 10 ; Matter of Brill, 131 AD2d 3 ; Matter of Elliott, 118 AD2d 293 .) In light of respondent’s failure to cooperate thus far and the likelihood that he has absconded with over $11,000 in escrow funds, the scheduling of a hearing would be futile. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Cornell v. Caren
green
1 sentence1984Thus, this case can be distinguished from Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co. ( 12 NY2d 1 ), Matter of Soto (Goldman) ( 7 NY2d 397 ) and Matter of Cornell v Caren ( 76 AD2d 974 , app dsmd 53 NY2d 939 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division, in that in those cases the collective bargaining agreements involved did not give the employee the options which he had in this case. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Matter of Soto (Goldman)
green
1 sentence1984Thus, this case can be distinguished from Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co. ( 12 NY2d 1 ), Matter of Soto (Goldman) ( 7 NY2d 397 ) and Matter of Cornell v Caren ( 76 AD2d 974 , app dsmd 53 NY2d 939 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division, in that in those cases the collective bargaining agreements involved did not give the employee the options which he had in this case. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Chupka v. Lorenz-Schneider Co.
green
1 sentence1984Thus, this case can be distinguished from Chupka v Lorenz-Schneider Co. ( 12 NY2d 1 ), Matter of Soto (Goldman) ( 7 NY2d 397 ) and Matter of Cornell v Caren ( 76 AD2d 974 , app dsmd 53 NY2d 939 ), relied upon by the Appellate Division, in that in those cases the collective bargaining agreements involved did not give the employee the options which he had in this case. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Wawrzonek v. Frank
green
1 sentence1979No part of the holdings in Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman ( 52 AD2d 608 , supra) or Matter of Coping v New York City Tr. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Seufert v. Tofany
neutral
1 sentence1976Although a license is a property right and may not be revoked except by due process of law (Matter of O’Keefe v Murphy, 38 NY2d 563 ; Matter of Evans v Monaghan, 306 NY 312 ; Matter of Seufert v Tofany, 43 AD2d 890 ), revocation in the circumstances here constitutes a civil and not a criminal sanction (Matter of Barnes v Tofany, 27 NY2d 74 ; Matter of Harmon v Tofany, 45 AD2d 924 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
House of Bacchus, Inc. v. Sarafan
neutral
1 sentence1976Although a license is a property right and may not be revoked except by due process of law (Matter of O’Keefe v Murphy, 38 NY2d 563 ; Matter of Evans v Monaghan, 306 NY 312 ; Matter of Seufert v Tofany, 43 AD2d 890 ), revocation in the circumstances here constitutes a civil and not a criminal sanction (Matter of Barnes v Tofany, 27 NY2d 74 ; Matter of Harmon v Tofany, 45 AD2d 924 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Barnes v. Tofany
green
1 sentence1976Although a license is a property right and may not be revoked except by due process of law (Matter of O’Keefe v Murphy, 38 NY2d 563 ; Matter of Evans v Monaghan, 306 NY 312 ; Matter of Seufert v Tofany, 43 AD2d 890 ), revocation in the circumstances here constitutes a civil and not a criminal sanction (Matter of Barnes v Tofany, 27 NY2d 74 ; Matter of Harmon v Tofany, 45 AD2d 924 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Evans v. Monaghan
green
1 sentence1976Although a license is a property right and may not be revoked except by due process of law (Matter of O’Keefe v Murphy, 38 NY2d 563 ; Matter of Evans v Monaghan, 306 NY 312 ; Matter of Seufert v Tofany, 43 AD2d 890 ), revocation in the circumstances here constitutes a civil and not a criminal sanction (Matter of Barnes v Tofany, 27 NY2d 74 ; Matter of Harmon v Tofany, 45 AD2d 924 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
O'Keefe v. Murphy
green
1 sentence1976Although a license is a property right and may not be revoked except by due process of law (Matter of O’Keefe v Murphy, 38 NY2d 563 ; Matter of Evans v Monaghan, 306 NY 312 ; Matter of Seufert v Tofany, 43 AD2d 890 ), revocation in the circumstances here constitutes a civil and not a criminal sanction (Matter of Barnes v Tofany, 27 NY2d 74 ; Matter of Harmon v Tofany, 45 AD2d 924 ). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.